JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. As per the report dated 02.07.2012 of the Superintendent of Police, Gaya, the appellant no. 1, namely, Naresh Prasad Singh has died during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands abated against appellant no. 1 Naresh Prasad Singh. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1997/442 of 1995, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellants 2 and 5, namely, Umesh Prasad Singh and Chunnu Prasd Singh are also convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; whereas the appellants 3 and 4, namely, Janardhan Prasad Singh and Vijay Prasad Singh are convicted under Sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. A complaint case was filed by Yadunandan Sharma in which he has alleged that on 17.08.1994, while he was returning home, he was waylaid by the appellants, who assaulted him and also snatched away Rs, 3,000/- from his pocket. The said money was part of the payment that the complainant had received on account of sale of a land. It has also being stated in the complaint petition that the complainant lives in village Kajur in his In-laws house. His wife Urmila Devi and son Krishna Kumar Singh were gifted 12 bighas of land in village Kajur and 20 bighas of land in village Rengna, which he had sold. It is also alleged that the appellants were armed with pistol and snatched away his money and assaulted him. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint case on the next day of the occurrence in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. 4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two witnesses have been mentioned in the complaint petition i.e. Shivdani Singh and Shaligram Pandey, however no role whatsoever has been assigned to these witnesses in the body of the complaint petition, nor, has the complainant explained as to how these two persons came to be present at the place of occurrence. 5. 5. Three witnesses including the complainant have been examined in this case with respect to the manner of the occurrence. PW 4 Arjun Prasad Sinha has been examined to prove the complaint petition as well as the vakalatnama attached with the complaint petition. PW 1 Shivdani Singh claims that he reached the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of raised voices and saw the appellants assaulting the complainant and this witness also supports the case of snatching Rs. 3,000/-. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the reason for the occurrence is that there is dispute with respect to lands. There are other cases pending between the parties with respect to certain pieces of lands. There is also a case in which the informant had mortgaged his land to Naresh Prasad Singh (now deceased) as he required Rs. 40,000/-. This witness has also stated that Naresh Prasad Singh, the appellant, is the father-in-law (chachia sasur) of the informant. It has been stated that Govind Narayan Singh is the father-in-law, and Yadunandan Singh and Naresh Prasad Singh are his brothers. According to this witness, Shaligram Pandey (PW 2) and this witness helped the complainant and took him home as he was badly injured due to the assault by the appellants. 6. This Court finds that the evidence of PW 1 cannot be believed for the reason that he has come for the first time in Court to state that he had seen the occurrence and that he had helped the complainant by carrying him to his home. In the complaint petition, no such case has been made out by the complainant. It would also appear from the evidence of PW 1 that both parties are litigating with each other with respect to the lands and money, both. PW 1 has stated nothing regarding the genesis of the occurrence, rather his evidence leads this Court to the conclusion that the complaint case has been filed because of the land dispute. 7. The next witness is Shaligram Pandey, PW 2, who happens to be the Yajman (;teku) by profession. According to this witness, the occurrence took place on 14.06.1998, which is in direct contradiction to the statement given by the complainant as well as PW 1. 7. The next witness is Shaligram Pandey, PW 2, who happens to be the Yajman (;teku) by profession. According to this witness, the occurrence took place on 14.06.1998, which is in direct contradiction to the statement given by the complainant as well as PW 1. A suggestion was given to this witness that the complainant had gifted (nku) a a piece of land to PW 2, which land belongs to the appellant Naresh Prasad Singh. The evidence of this witness indicates that the appellants had assaulted the complainant. According to him, the complainant had disclosed that he had filed a case against them on the day on which the occurrence had taken place and in fact, he met the complainant two days after the occurrence had taken place. It would also appear from the evidence of this witness that the complainant does not have the cordial relationship with his brother-in-law (sadu). It is stated that he is litigating with his brother-in-law. It is also stated that one of the brothers-in-law supports the complainant whereas the other supports the appellant Naresh Prasad Singh. At paragraph 11, PW 2 has stated as follows:- ;g d¢l eqdnek ftruk Hkh gS lc lEifr d¢ dkj.k gSA 8. The evidence of this witness disclose that the case has been filed because of land dispute and that the complainant is on litigating terms with his family (In-laws) regarding lands and is also litigating and fighting criminal cases and civil suits with the appellants. The story regarding theft and assault is not borne out as there is no injury report, the complaint was filed after a delay of one day, whereas, the complainant could have lodged a case in the Police Station, which for some reason, he did not do. This view of the Court is further fortified by the evidence of the informant in this regard. The Court cannot believe that PW 2 was an eye-witness to the occurrence in view of the fact that the complainant has not disclosed in the complaint petition that PW 1 came to help him and took him home after he was injured. Therefore, this Court rejects the evidence of PW 2. 9. This Court is now left to examine the evidence of the complainant Jadunandan Sharma, who has been examined as PW 3. Therefore, this Court rejects the evidence of PW 2. 9. This Court is now left to examine the evidence of the complainant Jadunandan Sharma, who has been examined as PW 3. The evidence of PW 3 would reveal that he denies that Naresh Prasad Sigh was the brother of his father-in-law Govind Narayan Singh, although he admits that Naresh Prasad Singh is related to the complainant. The complainant admits that he had mortgaged his property to the appellant Naresh Prasad Singh and taken Rs. 40,000/- from him. He also states that criminal and civil cases have been filed because of this fact. The appellants have been acquitted in the criminal case. Tapeshwar Singh, the uncle (pkpk) of PW 1 has given evidence in favour of the appellants in the aforesaid cases. He also admits that there are title suits pending between him and his brothers-in-law and that Naresh Prasad Singh has given evidence in favour of his brother-in-law (sadhu). Regarding the genesis of the occurrence, i.e. the money allegedly stolen from him, the evidence at paragraph 15 is important. This witness has stated that he was carrying Rs. 3,000/- which was the amount that he had received on account of sale of a piece of land. He does not remember the date on which the sale deed was executed or the amount which has been shown to have been received by him before the Registrar. He cannot recall as how much advance he received before the sale deed was executed and the money he received at the time of execution of the sale deed. This witness has stated that he consulted a lawyer, and thereafter has filed the present complaint case. 10. The evidence aforesaid disclose that a complaint case was filed after a delay of one day alleging theft and assault, which is not supported by two witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant for the reason stated in this order, the genesis of the occurrence is not proved. On the other hand, the defence has been able to demonstrate that the entire case has been instituted out of malice and due to land dispute and that the parties are on litigating terms because of the lands, either mortgaged by the complainant or given as a gift to strangers. On the other hand, the defence has been able to demonstrate that the entire case has been instituted out of malice and due to land dispute and that the parties are on litigating terms because of the lands, either mortgaged by the complainant or given as a gift to strangers. It would also appear that the complainant is not only litigating with the appellants, but is also fighting with his brothers-in-law because of the partition of the lands. 11. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of Naresh Prasad Singh, appellant no. 1, whereas appellant nos. 4 and 5 are the sons of Naresh Prasad Singh. In other words, the entire family has been implicated in this case. 12. Considering the facts aforesaid, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case and as such the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1997/442 of 1995 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed.